Those tiny streams of "tight oil" add up to 7 million barrels per day. On a country basis only the Saudis and Russians produce more per day. And that's why you are paying $2.50 per gallon of gasoline instead of $4.

US energy consumption per capita in 2018 is the same as it was in 1968, incomes per capita have increased ~130% and energy spending per capita relative to incomes has declined by ~25%. Long live the permaculture hippies!

EROI is not important unless you are an academic trying to get a paper published in the EROI Journal.

It is interesting that the coal industry is collapsing as the world reaches Peak Oil. It is also interesting that the world's economies are becoming zombiefided. Industrial production, shipping, trade, retail sales, and every other indicator is now showing signs of severe distress. The ERoEI of petroleum has fallen 61% in the last 30 years, other fossil fuels have been following it down. The world is showing symptoms of severe energy starvation, and the promoted cure is to print more money.

Your EROI graph is bull shit, ETP Bozo. EROI was not 80 in 1960 nor is it 10 in 2020.The only energy starvation is those morons who need to express net energy supply in EROI terms.

A decline in net energy supply from EROI 40 to EROI 20 is the equivalent of a percentage decline from 92.5% to 90%. That is not even noticeable in the grand scheme.

AFAIK there is not a single EROI academic that can empirically demonstrate that the EROI of oil from the well head to the gasoline tank has declined between 1968 and 2018. If there is, produce the paper.

ERoEI closely mapped the price of oil until reaching the 2012 energy half way point. After 2012 the correlation between petroleum production and world GDP began breaking down. It appears that the energy delivery of petroleum has now fallen too low for it to act as a control on the value of the dollar. Without the necessary control factor the value of the dollar is now undefined. It is at the mercy of the political expediencies of the central banks, and is no longer acting as a reliable, and independent mechanism for true price discovery. click to enlarge

OPEC is worried about rising inventories in the U.S and Europe. But there are reports of a massive petroleum products glut in China. Officially everything is of course humming along nicely in Communist China. But with lot of numbers tanking by 20 percent in a Chinese hard landing...the glut is probably massive.

But with lot of numbers tanking by 20 percent in a Chinese hard landing...the glut is probably massive.

A 1% decline in world GDP would reduce consumption by 275 mb/ yr (750 k/day). The price would collapse, and the Middle East would blow up in a year. A 2% decline in world GDP would put a significant portion of the industry out of business from the price fall. A barrel of oil no longer delivers enough energy to the economy to power growth. It no longer even delivers enough energy to power the economy that is presently functioning. We have reached Peak as the result of that energy deficiency, and it is falling at a rate of 2.2% a year.

Short, if you're going to spam this board with that stupid pic of yours can you at least learn to trim the bottom off so we don't have a ton of useless whitespace to scroll through?

EXTREME PREDICTION LEADERBOARD "this is peak now. Wanna bet? The Real Pain starts . . . now." (11/21/18)" --pstarr"$0/barrel soon as per etp." (12/30/18)" --pstarrATTN: SHORT LOST A BET AND WON'T EVEN ADMIT HE MADE ONE. HE SHOULD NOT BE WELCOME HERE!!!

Since 2008 the data has become very erratic, much like this data set started bouncing around in 2012. The upcoming melt down has been in progress for quit a few years; it has only been CB manipulation that has been disguising it. They are now caught in a liquidity trap with no place to go. The White Knight has turned out to be some shrimp hiding behind the curtain.

"Signature characteristics of a liquidity trap are short-term interest rates that are near zero and fluctuations in the monetary base that fail to translate into fluctuations in general price levels.”

Short, this is a comment about your last graph about the GDP disconnecting from oil production.

Could there be a factor in causing the disconnect that represents the unexpectedly (by major forecasters) fast rise of renewable energy? I know that the starting base-% is low so that in early years this could be ignored, but at some stage as the energy mix transforms linking GDP to just one source of energy is bound to bring distortions.

So looking that the chart you are saying there is disaster in store, whereas I can look at it as wonder if the transformation from oil is working (and showing up in the charts ).

Short, this is a comment about your last graph about the GDP disconnecting from oil production.

Could there be a factor in causing the disconnect that represents the unexpectedly (by major forecasters) fast rise of renewable energy? I know that the starting base-% is low so that in early years this could be ignored, but at some stage as the energy mix transforms linking GDP to just one source of energy is bound to bring distortions.

So looking that the chart you are saying there is disaster in store, whereas I can look at it as wonder if the transformation from oil is working (and showing up in the charts)

HI Ed, thanks for your comment.

According to the EIA in 2015 12% of world marketable energy production came from renewables; that has been a 6 fold increase since 1960. World renewable energy production has grown from 2% of total consumption to 12% in 66 years. During that same 66 year period total extractable petroleum reserves have fallen from 80% of URR to 15%. If renewable are going to replace petroleum before it reaches 0% of URR, they will have to grow much, much faster than they have historically.

The question then: "I can look at it as wonder if the transformation from oil is working" is implying that perhaps renewables are replacing oil production? If that were the case it would require fewer barrels to produce the same GDP. The points on the graph of chart 139a would be moving to the left of the curve; instead they are moving to the right (2012 to 2016 anomaly). It seems more likely that the monetary base has changed, or that it is requiring more oil to generate the same GDP.

The major change in our relationship with oil has come from technological advances. The computer revolution that began in the 60' has changed how much we travel, to where, and why. Petroleum is still what powers the vast majority of the world's transportation fleet, but computer technology now allows us to accomplish digitally what once required travel. It has also made what travel that is necessary more efficient; the modern vehicle has now become a computer with a steering wheel attached. TCMs, ECMs and half a dozen other computer systems in modern vehicles produce high efficiencies for operations and maintenance, but most of all they allow the burning of the ever lower quality fuels coming to the market. Those fuels are made in a refinery that is run, and could only be run by a very advanced computer system.

Other technologies have had a significant impact on our relationship with petroleum. Material science advances have revolutionized architecture, transportation, communications, and health care to name just a few. We can hope that ongoing advances can take some of the bite out of the 2030 "dead state" event. But hope is a piss poor strategy to base an entire civilization upon.

Like Siamese twins modern civilization is still bound head, and shoulders to oil.

The claim that GDP is decoupling from oil is patent BS. The correlation between the GDP and CO2 emissions remains within the same tight bounds. If the claim was correct, then the GDP growth and CO2 emissions growth would be decoupling. I notice that a lot of so-called economists do not really understand inflation adjustment. The enormous debt growth over the last 30 years and more has created the delusion that GDP can grow through consumer wishes and company advertisements without any other inputs. Then we have the shenanigans with oil price manipulation by the so-called free market. Because, everyone knows, that US gasoline stock levels represent the physical global oil supply potential and demand for crude oil.

So non adjusted by real inflation GDP numbers pumped up by debt generation and oil price undervaluations are thrown around to "prove" this GDP detached from physical reality BS. Alternatives are a drop in the bucket as of the present time. They cannot account for the alleged "decoupling".

[crawling back into a dark corner with a ] It looks like I misread the chart with it bending the wrong way! Short, thanks for taking the time for a good reply.

It's certainly an easy mistake to make; I do it all the time. It is like supply and demand, and the chicken and the egg. Which comes first? Economics is so riddled with the problem it is no surprise that the world is going broke. Economists keep using their other left that they thought was right. Then they blame the mistake on the weather!

dissident wrote:The claim that GDP is decoupling from oil is patent BS. The correlation between the GDP and CO2 emissions remains within the same tight bounds. If the claim was correct, then the GDP growth and CO2 emissions growth would be decoupling. I notice that a lot of so-called economists do not really understand inflation adjustment. The enormous debt growth over the last 30 years and more has created the delusion that GDP can grow through consumer wishes and company advertisements without any other inputs. Then we have the shenanigans with oil price manipulation by the so-called free market. Because, everyone knows, that US gasoline stock levels represent the physical global oil supply potential and demand for crude oil.

So non adjusted by real inflation GDP numbers pumped up by debt generation and oil price undervaluations are thrown around to "prove" this GDP detached from physical reality BS. Alternatives are a drop in the bucket as of the present time. They cannot account for the alleged "decoupling".

Yes, that is true. But Short is also correct as his graphs attest. The decoupling is precisely because energy per say is no longer driving economic activity but instead the frenzied lending. And so GDP as measured in dollars is a mirage that fails to account for the diminishing energy but instead coaxes economic activity in the present by depriving posterity of economic well being . Basically leaving the Economy and society with a tremendous debt load even as net energy dwindles.

dissident wrote:The claim that GDP is decoupling from oil is patent BS. The correlation between the GDP and CO2 emissions remains within the same tight bounds. If the claim was correct, then the GDP growth and CO2 emissions growth would be decoupling. I notice that a lot of so-called economists do not really understand inflation adjustment. The enormous debt growth over the last 30 years and more has created the delusion that GDP can grow through consumer wishes and company advertisements without any other inputs. Then we have the shenanigans with oil price manipulation by the so-called free market. Because, everyone knows, that US gasoline stock levels represent the physical global oil supply potential and demand for crude oil.

So non adjusted by real inflation GDP numbers pumped up by debt generation and oil price undervaluations are thrown around to "prove" this GDP detached from physical reality BS. Alternatives are a drop in the bucket as of the present time. They cannot account for the alleged "decoupling".

Yes, that is true. But Short is also correct as his graphs attest. The decoupling is precisely because energy per say is no longer driving economic activity but instead the frenzied lending. And so GDP as measured in dollars is a mirage that fails to account for the diminishing energy but instead coaxes economic activity in the present by depriving posterity of economic well being . Basically leaving the Economy and society with a tremendous debt load even as net energy dwindles.

Clearly I am not discounting that point and am in fact making it. Debt generation and real inflation combined with the lack of proper accounting for inflation and bubbles is creating the illusion in some minds of an abstract economy existing detached from energy constraints. My point is that CO2 emissions are an actual measure of GDP growth that remove spurious accounting fluff. At the end of the day the economy is a physical entity and not an abstract entity. Of course, human brains affect how it evolves, but any claim that the economy exists independent of physical reality, especially the all-important energy constraints, is pure nonsense.